Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Another cyclist loses their life. | |
Posted by: | Michael Robinson | |
Date/Time: | 24/06/15 18:52:00 |
"Listening to people who do not cycle (and may never cycle) and responding to their reasons for not cycling is a very risky business." I think an approach needs to recognise that there a whole range of people taking the 98% of trips in London not made by bike and a one size fits all approach won't work for such a diverse set of people. Existing cyclists are disproportionately middle class, middle aged white men so I think it is mistake to assume what works for them will work for everyone else. A commuter into the City may also be a different type of animal, so to speak, from a school run mum. There has been market segmentation work trying to understand what motivates the people who do and who don't cycle. At one end of the range of non-cyclists are the "interested but concerned" who could be persuaded and at the other end of the range are the "no way no how" and yes, these are a lost cause and there is no point listening to them. Notwithstanding tragedies like yesterday, cycling is already pretty safe however it is the perception of safety that matters most to the "interested but concerned" hence the importance of separated lanes and reducing traffic speeds to them. The overall growth in cycling isn't as impressive as it may seem. An overall modal share of 2% is pretty pathetic and that has barely grown given London's population and number of other journeys have grown over the last 10 years as well. It is really only commuting into the central activity zone where there has been some growth and cycling is still practically non-existent in the outer boroughs. |